Search

Background: The STarT-MSK-Tool is an adaptation of the well established STarT-Back-Tool, used to risk-stratify patients with a wider range of musculoskeletal presentations., Objective: To formally translate and cross-culturally adapt the Keele STarT-MSK risk stratification tool into German (STarT-MSKG) and to establish its reliability and validity., Methods: A formal, multi-step, forward and backward translation approach was used. To assess validity patients aged ≥18 years, with acute, subacute or chronic musculoskeletal presentations in the lumbar spine, hip, knee, shoulder, or neck were included. The prospective cohort was used with initial data collected electronically at the point-of-consultation. Retest and 6-month follow-up questionnaires were sent by email. Test-retest reliability, construct validity, discriminative ability, predictive ability and floor or ceiling effects were analysed using intraclass correlation coefficient, and comparisons with a reference standard (Orebro-Musculoskeletal-Pain-Questionnaire: OMPQ) using correlations, ROC-curves and regression models., Results: The participants' (n = 287) mean age was 47 (SD = 15.8) years, 51% were female, with 48.8% at low, 43.6% at medium, and 7.7% at high risk. With ICC = 0.75 (95% CI 0.69; 0.81) test-retest-reliability was good. Construct validity was good with correlations for the STarT-MSKG-Tool against the OMPQ-Tool of rs = 0.74 (95% CI 0.68, 0.79). The ability of the tool [comparison OMPQ] to predict 6-month pain and disability was acceptable with AUC = 0.77 (95% CI 0.71, 0.83) [OMPQ = 0.74] and 0.76 (95% CI 0.69, 0.82) [OMPQ = 0.72] respectively. However, the explained variance (linear/logistic regression) for predicting 6-month pain (21% [OMPQ = 17%]/logistic = 29%) and disability (linear = 20%:[OMPQ = 19%]/logistic = 26%), whilst being comparable to the existing OMPQ reference standard, fell short of the a priori target of ≥30%., Conclusions: The German version of the STarT-MSK-Tool is a valid instrument for use across multiple musculoskeletal conditions and is availabe for use in clinical practice. Comparison with the OMPQ suggests it is a good alternative., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Challenges exist in recruiting an international sample of clinicians and researchers to an online survey. Traditional recruitment methods remain relevant but issues such as narrow geographical reach, high cost and time intensity limit what can be achieved when aiming to recruit an international, multi-disciplinary sample. Internet-mediated and social media approaches to recruitment and engagement offer new, untested ways of capitalizing upon existing professional networks., Objective: To develop, use and appraise a multi-modal recruitment strategy for an online, international survey regarding the management of shoulder pain., Methods: Traditional recruitment methods were combined with internet-mediated recruitment methods to form a multi-modal recruitment strategy. An overview of the development of this three-month recruitment strategy is provided and the value and role of each strand of the recruitment strategy discussed., Results: In response to the multi-modal recruitment strategy, data was received from 565 clinicians and researchers from 31 countries (64% UK). Complete data was received from 387 respondents with no demographic differences between respondents who completed, and those who started but did not complete the survey. Over 30% of responses were received within 1 week, 50% within 4 weeks and 81% within 8 weeks., Conclusions: This study shows the acceptability and international, multidisciplinary reach of a low cost multi-modal recruitment strategy for an online survey of international clinicians and researchers. Incorporating the use of social media proved to be an effective, time and resource-efficient recruitment strategy for this online survey and appeared to enhance clinician engagement. A multimodal recruitment strategy is worthy of consideration for future online surveys of clinicians and researchers., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background & Aims: Musculoskeletal pain, the most common cause of disability globally, is most frequently managed in primary care. People with musculoskeletal pain in different body regions share similar characteristics, prognosis, and may respond to similar treatments. This overview aims to summarise current best evidence on currently available treatment options for the five most common musculoskeletal pain presentations (back, neck, shoulder, knee and multi-site pain) in primary care., Methods: A systematic search was conducted. Initial searches identified clinical guidelines, clinical pathways and systematic reviews. Additional searches found recently published trials and those addressing gaps in the evidence base. Data on study populations, interventions, and outcomes of intervention on pain and function were extracted. Quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR, and strength of evidence rated using a modified GRADE approach., Results: Moderate to strong evidence suggests that exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions are effective for relieving pain and improving function for musculoskeletal pain. NSAIDs and opioids reduce pain in the short-term, but the effect size is modest and the potential for adverse effects need careful consideration. Corticosteroid injections were found to be beneficial for short-term pain relief among patients with knee and shoulder pain. However, current evidence remains equivocal on optimal dose, intensity and frequency, or mode of application for most treatment options., Conclusion: This review presents a comprehensive summary and critical assessment of current evidence for the treatment of pain presentations in primary care. The evidence synthesis of interventions for common musculoskeletal pain presentations shows moderate-strong evidence for exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions, with short-term benefits only from pharmacological treatments. Future research into optimal dose and application of the most promising treatments is needed.

Background and Objective: The STarT Back stratified primary care approach has demonstrated clinical and cost effectiveness in the UK, and is commonly used by General Practitioners (GPs). However, it remains unknown how this approach could be implemented into the German healthcare system. The aim of this study was therefore to explore the views and perceptions of German GPs in respect to using a stratified primary care for low back pain (LBP)., Methods: A 90-minute think-tank workshop was conducted with 14 male and five female GPs, during which the STarT-Back-Screening-Tool (SBST) and related research evidence was presented. This was followed by two focus groups, based on a semi-structured interview guideline to identify potential implementation barriers and opportunities. Discussions were audiotaped, transcribed and coded using a content analysis approach., Results: For the three deductively developed main themes, 15 subthemes emerged: (1) application of the SBST, with the following subthemes: which health profession should administer it, patients known to the GP practice, the reason for the GP consultation, scoring the tool, the tool format, and the anticipated impact on GP practice; (2) psychologically informed physiotherapy, with subthemes including: provision by a physiotherapist, anticipated impact, the skills of physiotherapists, management of patients with severe psychosocial problems, referral and remuneration; (3) the management of low-risk patients, with subthemes including: concern about the appropriate advising health professional, information and media, length of consultation, and local exercise venues., Conclusions: The attitudes of GPs towards stratified primary care for LBP indicated positive support for pilot-testing in Germany. However, there were mixed reactions to the ability of German physiotherapists to manage high-risk patients and handle their complex clinical needs. GPs also mentioned practical difficulties in providing extended advice to low-risk patients, which nevertheless could be addressed by involvement of specifically trained medical assistants.

Background: Although evidence based treatment approaches for acute low back pain are available, the prevention of persistent disabling symptoms remains a challenge. Subgroup targeted treatment using adequate screening tools may be a key component for the development of new treatment concepts and is demonstrating promising early evidence. The Keele STarT Back Screening Tool is a practical instrument, developed to stratify patients with back pain according to their risk of persistent disabling symptoms. The aim of this study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the STarT tool into German (STarT-G) and to investigate its psychometric properties., Methods: The translation was performed according to internationally accepted guidelines and pretested to assess face validity among patients. Psychometric testing was then performed within a cross-sectional cohort of adult patients attending physiotherapy practices for back pain. Patients completed a booklet containing STarT-G and 5 reference standard questionnaires. Measurement properties of the STarT-G were explored including construct validity, floor and ceiling effects, and discriminative abilities., Results: The pretests (n=25) showed good face validity including strong comprehension and acceptability of the STarT-G with only item 5 (fear avoidance) manifesting some ambiguities. The questionnaires were sent to 74 and completed by 50 patients (68%) of whom mean age was 46 (SD 14.5) years and 52% were male. Spearman's rank correlations for construct validity ranged from 0.35 to 0.56. AUCs for discriminative ability ranged from 0.79 to 0.91. Neither floor nor ceiling effects were observed. There were 28 (57%) participants defined as low risk, 17 (35%) as medium risk, and 4 (8%) as high risk., Conclusion: STarT-G is linguistically valid for German speaking countries. For the selected population, the correlations indicate acceptable validity and AUC showed satisfying discrimination. Data for psychometric properties have to be confirmed in a large scale study with a representative sample.

Objective: To develop and validate a patient report outcome measure (PROM) for clinical practice that can monitor health status of patients with a range of musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders., Methods: Constructs for inclusion in the MSK-PROM were identified from a consensus process involving patients with musculoskeletal conditions, clinicians, purchasers of healthcare services, and primary care researchers. Psychometric properties of the brief tool, including face and construct validity, repeatability and responsiveness were assessed in a sample of patients with musculoskeletal pain consulting physiotherapy services in the United Kingdom (n=425)., Results: The consensus process identified 10 prioritised domains for monitoring musculoskeletal health status: pain intensity, quality of life, physical capacity, interference with social/leisure activities, emotional well-being, severity of most difficult thing, activities and roles, understanding independence, and overall impact. As the EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) is a widely adopted PROMs tool and covers the first four domains listed, to reduce patient burden to a minimum the MSK-PROM was designed to capture the remaining six prioritised domains which are not measured by the EQ-5D-5L. The tool demonstrated excellent reliability, construct validity, responsiveness and acceptability to patients and clinicians for use in clinical practice., Conclusion: We have validated a brief patient reported outcome measure (MSK-PROM) for use in clinical practice to measure musculoskeletal health status and monitor outcomes over time using domains that are meaningful to patients and sensitive to change. Further work will establish whether the MSK-PROM is useful in other musculoskeletal healthcare settings.

Objective: UK Indian adults have higher risks of coronary heart disease and type 2 diabetes than Indian and UK European adults. With growing evidence that these diseases originate in early life, we compared cardiometabolic risk markers in Indian, UK Indian and white European children., Methods: Comparisons were based on the Mysore Parthenon Birth Cohort Study (MPBCS), India and the Child Heart Health Study in England (CHASE), which studied 9-10 year-old children (538 Indian, 483 UK Indian, 1375 white European) using similar methods. Analyses adjusted for study differences in age and sex., Results: Compared with Mysore Indians, UK Indians had markedly higher BMI (% difference 21%, 95%CI 18 to 24%), skinfold thickness (% difference 34%, 95%CI 26 to 42%), LDL-cholesterol (mean difference 0.48, 95%CI 0.38 to 0.57 mmol/L), systolic BP (mean difference 10.3, 95% CI 8.9 to 11.8 mmHg) and fasting insulin (% difference 145%, 95%CI 124 to 168%). These differences (similar in both sexes and little affected by adiposity adjustment) were larger than those between UK Indians and white Europeans. Compared with white Europeans, UK Indians had higher skinfold thickness (% difference 6.0%, 95%CI 1.5 to 10.7%), fasting insulin (% difference 31%, 95%CI 22 to 40%), triglyceride (% difference 13%, 95%CI 8 to 18%) and LDL-cholesterol (mean difference 0.12 mmol/L, 95%CI 0.04 to 0.19 mmol/L)., Conclusions: UK Indian children have an adverse cardiometabolic risk profile, especially compared to Indian children. These differences, not simply reflecting greater adiposity, emphasize the need for prevention strategies starting in childhood or earlier.